Findings of Fact
0'6 - 15
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
INRE:
The application of Mr. Gary Schneider for a Variance from the lO-foot dock setback zone and a
Wetland Alteration Permit to request a No-Loss determination for wetlands on site.
On August 5, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met atits regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the application of Mr. Gary Schneider for variance and wetland alteration approval.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested
persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential, RSF.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density use.
3. The property is Outlot A of the Reichert's Addition Plat recorded on January 23, 1978.
4. The Ordinance directs that a variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals or the City Council only if the following criteria are met. The six (6) criteria and
our findings regarding them are:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of
the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting
standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: Of the eleven lots within 500 feet of the subject property with lake frontage,
five have docks. It is reasonable, based upon the plat and the development contract, for
the property owner to assume they have rights to install a dock. Outlot A has convergent
side lot lines which preclude having adequate area to install a dock while meeting current
ordinance setback requirements and having the water depth for adequate draft to operate
most motorized watercraft.
b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
1
Finding: The creation of Outlot A with the Reichert's Addition Plat is a unique
situation. Outlot C, which is owned by 608 Pleasant View Road, has a similar situation
and has installed a dock. Outlot C does not, however, have the same constraints imposed
upon it by the convergent side yard lot lines which create an area which is not con~ucive
to the placement of a dock which conforms to current ordinance setback requirements.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: Although a dock will increase the value of the property, it is not the sole intent
for requesting this variance. The property owner wishes to have overnight dockage
rights and under the development contract for the outlot, conditions were allocated for
the placement of one dock with overnight mooring for up to two boats as part of the
subdivision.
d. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The lot was created in 1978, prior to Ordinance 073 which set standards for the
dimension and placement of docks. The lot was created with divergent side lot lines which
does not allow for the placement of a dock which would conform to current ordinance. The
development contract for the subdivision allocates one dock with mooring for up to two
boats.
e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
Finding: Mr. Schneider has indicated that he has worked with the property owner to the
west of the subject site to align the dock in a manner which does not obstruct their access
to and from the lake. Mr. Thielen has corroborated this in an email to staff dated
7/24/08. Outlot B (Near Mountain Lake Home Owners Association) has a dock ori the
southerly portion of the parcel per the 1978 development contract. The placement of Mr.
Schneider's dock will not obstruct access to and from Outlot B, nor will it extend into the
area of the lake where normal lake traffic operates. Therefore, the dock will not create an
. obstruction or safety issue to normal lake traffic.
f. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease
visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or
substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The dock will not be located near any homes or public streets and is a typical
use 0f lakefront property. By installing the dock eight inches above the Ordinary high
Water elevation, without the placement of any additional fill or the excavation of any
materials from the lake/wetland, no impact to the wetland will occur. Further, by extending
the dock away from the shoreline, the existing vegetation will be maintained and will not be
disturbed as a result of boat traffic to and from the dock.
2
5. Wetland Alteration (follows Conditional Use Permit criteria):
a. The proposed project will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
b. The proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive
plan and the zoning chapter of the City Code.
c. The proposed project will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and will not change the essential character of that area.
d. The proposed project will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
e. The proposed project will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water
and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use.
f. The proposed project will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
g. The proposed project will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
h. The proposed project will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create
traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
1. The proposed project will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,
natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
J. The proposed project will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k. The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values.
1. The proposed project will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the
City code.
6. The placement of the dock does not meet the standards for definition as a wetland impact.
The placement of the dock would result in no net loss of wetland function or value.
3
7. The placement of posts for the anchoring of the dock would constitute a wetland impact
under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420. However, total impact from these posts would be less
than the 20 square feet of impact which is allowed under the De minimis exemption as
described in Chapter 8420.0155 and does not require a wetland replacement plan.
8. . The planning report #08-15, dated August 5, 2008 prepared by Terrance Jeffery, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Variance #08-15
from the lO-foot dock setback zone for the placement of a dock on a lot zoned Single Family
Residential (RSF), which will extend through the 10- foot dock setback zone and 51 feet past the
lot line extended; and approve Wetland Alteration Permit $08-15 to issue a Decision of No Net
Loss of Wetland Function and Values subject to the recommended conditions of approval
contained within the staff report.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of August 2008.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
4